Recognizing and Dealing With Vendetta in rec.boats

by RBBI

Origionally posted 14 August 1998

August 4th 1998 a posting concerning Brunswick / Mercury Marine Watermouse boat problems at
Disney World appeared in the rec.boats
newsgroup. It was posted by upinews1@aol.com and consisted of what appeared to be a UPI news article. A discussion
about the article, genuineness of the post, accuracy of facts presented, and true intent of the poster ensued. We will use this background to show how rec.boats did a pretty good job in policing itself and offer some additional tips for readers when
evaluating posts for authenticity. Most of the original posts appear below. We have removed the full email address
and personal names of all except the original poster of the thread (chain of messages).

Subject: Dangerous Boats at Walt Disney World
From: boatnews1
Date: 1998/08/04
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Eight people have been seriously injured within the last six months while
operating Brunswick's new Watermouse boat at Walt Disney World.
Story by John Paulson / UPINEWS1
When Brunswick Corporation renewed their 10 year contract with Disney they
offered to replace the aging Watersprite, a two passenger sportboat
originally built by Disney and operated successfully on Bay Lake for the last
25 years. Brunswick assured Disney that the new Watermouse design would
increase revenues and equal Disney's safety record of only 8 accidents in 10
million rides. According to sources, neither goal has been reached. In
fact, since the Watermouse boats introduction last winter, 8 people have been
seriously injured. More specifically, 8 accidents in 5,000 rides. All of
the guests involved had to be hospitalized with injuries from propeller
lacerations to head concussions. The frequency of accidents has frustrated
both Disney and Brunswick officials who are trying to keep a lid on the real
cause.
According to inside sources close to Brunswick and Disney. The
problem started when Mercury Marine removed the propeller guard to increase
performance as well as changed the rounded bow to a pointed bow for
appearance. These two changes, despite numerous warnings, have deemed the
Watermouse a dangerous boat and the direct cause of the injuries which were
foreseeable and could have been prevented. ("according to sources").
From my own personal experience, I could only describe the Watermouse
as; to fast for children, very wet, unstable with the ability to steer this
craft out of control at full speed. Not to forget, the pointed bow which
looks like a harpoon waiting for a target.
When, I asked a Disney cast member (at the Grand) why the propeller
guard was removed. He responded by saying, "the Watermouse could not get on
a plane with the guard attached, otherwise they probably would have left it
on."
In March of 1998, I was afforded the opportunity to personally
witness an accident behind the Grand resort where a guest named Feakins of
Pennsylvania (note original post contained full name and town) was rammed
broadside by a young boy with the pointed bow, knocking him out of the boat
into the water, only to be run over by another boat, being driven by a young girl.
Thanks to no propeller guard and a pointed bow, Mr. Feakins suffered
multiple propeller lacerations on his already battered body, which of course
could have been prevented had the propeller guard been installed on a boat
with a rounded bow.
After the Feakins accident, I asked a cast member at the Grand
resort where they would usually takes boats to avoid the publics viewing of
blood and gore. I was told that all boats were serviced at the dry dock
facility, in the same breath he mention that Disney was offered a safer boat
similar to the original Watersprite called "Jeti" that was designed by the
same guy who invented parasailing and also had operated the parasail
concession at the Contemporary resort for the last three years. Although,
this mystery inventor was no were to be found, I was able to locate
information written about him on the Web at http://www.skyrider.net
A few days after the accident, the damaged boats showed up at the dry dock
facility. With no security at the gate, I was afforded easy access to an
unsecured area where the boats were being stored. With no one in site, I was
free to roam around without restrictions. Upon closer inspection, I was
horrified to see blood splattered boats with human skin and hair still intact
on the pointed bow for all to view. Simply put, it looked like the remains
from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, "how unsanitary and UN-Disney-like"
(download photos called WaterM~1.Zip)
In a recent survey of 30 cast members at the Wilderness Lodge, Grand,
Polynesian and Contemporary who were familiar with the original Watersprite,
all concurred, that the Watermouse looks nice, but is really to dangerous
for inexperienced drivers."
I am certain that Brunswick feels that the Watermouse is a small liability in
the big picture. On the other hand, juries have historically awarded
outrageous sums for punitive damages when proof of gross and willful
negligence are so profound making the Watermouse a winning lottery ticket for
the first accident victim willing to step up the plate and collect.
Safety is an issue that should never be compromised, especially at Walt
Disney World.

Subject: Re: Boating Safety at Walt Disney World
From: Scott
Date: 1998/08/04
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Disney uses engines with props because Mercury is a "Participant". That is a
Disney term for a company that sponsors a ride or other area in return for
signage and advertising rights. Mercury doesn't offer small jets. For years they
have used the 9.9 with prop guards.
I worked for a Participant (Cobia) for over 10 years. I am very skeptical of the
lead story in this link. I have not seen the Brunswick Watermouse except on the
web and I can not make any claims regarding their safety or lack there of. But I
can say that no one can get to Disney's Dry Dock with passing through 2 security
gates that require ID checks. Even though our company had supplied boats for 10
years, we were checked every time we entered those gates even if it was several
times in the same day.
Disney is extremely safety conscious. Whenever we were on the lakes to do
photography for our catalog, we could not leave the dock with out a Disney
representative onboard the photo boat to ensure that we were off the water
before the parks opened (a must at Epcot) and that we kept away from any other
traffic if we were on Bay Lake or the Seven Seas Lagoon during business hours.
If Disney even suspected that the new boats were a problem, they would yank them
immediately rather than risk any liability. The $3,000 per day that they take in
is peanuts compared to their total operations and the risk to their name.
I am under the suspicion that the "article" posted here is an attempt by the
"other designer" to malign the Brunswick effort and promote his own boat.
Has anyone living in Orlando heard about any mishaps at Disney?
Scott
Cacorder wrote:
> Just curious, why the heck would Disney use boats with props? It seems a jet
> powered boat with covered intake grate and internal impeller would be safer.
> Any answers?

Note- the message below was originally posted with full names,
phone numbers and addresses of several individuals. In better keeping
with internet privacy, we removed those.

Subject: Re: Boating Safety at Walt Disney World
From: upinews1@aol.com
Date: 1998/08/05
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Dear Scott,
Thank you for your quick response.
In my opinion, the Watermouse story goes far beyond the victims of
accidents or potential vendors. Accordingly my reliable sources, it was
Disney's recreation management team involved with the Watermouse
project that intentionally stalled Regal Marine and other vendors to
supply boats which meet with Disney's approval and incorporated the
proven propeller guard and rounded bow design. However, Disney's
strategy was designed to force Brunswick into building the Watermouse
boats at a loss and in lieu of the safety and performance problems.
The types and frequency of accidents to date, has sent both sides
into a corner pointing fingers at each other while at the same time
preserving their public image.
With regard to evidence of accidents to date. I have listed them in
Chronological order..
WATERMOUSE BOATING ACCIDENTS
Date of the accident : January 29, 1998
Accident Victim: Ms. Davis
Re: Husband and wife collide, the husband sustained head injuries
Date of the accident: March 13th, 1998 Accident Victim: Feakins
Re: A man was hit broadside by another boat driven by a young boy,
knocking him into the water, the same man was then run over by another
boat driven by a young girl. Photos are available of these blood
splattered boats on request!
Date of the accident: April 10, 1998 Accident Victim: Ciccirone
Re: Three boats collide, Ciccirone is knocked
out of the boat by the pointed bow and run over by one of the another
boats, she sustained head injuries from the propeller and pointed bow.
Date of the accident: April 10, 1998 Accident Victim: Unknown
Re: Three boats collide, a young boy is knocked out of boat by the
pointed bow and run over. He sustained head injuries by the propeller.
Date of the accident: April 15, 1998 Accident Victim: Unknown
Re: A boat run out of control ran into a wall at full speed, cracking
the deck…and injuring the driver.
Date of the accident: April 20, 1998 Accident Victim: Archer
Re: The first boat stalls, a second boat runs over
the stern with the pointed bow hitting the driver in the back of the head.
He sustained a concussion. The driver of the second boat was found
to be only 8 years old !
Date of the accident: May 12, 1998 Accident Victim: Unknown
Re: Two boats collide, a young girl is knocked out of boat by the
pointed bow and run over. The driver sustained minor head injuries
by the propeller.
Date of the accident: July 4, 1998 Accident Victim: Unknown
Re: Two boats collide, the pointed bow knocked the driver out of
the boat into the water. The driver sustained a head concussion
but refused treatment.
I believe there are more, but I could not confirm.
ANOTHER RECENT WATERMOUSE DILEMMA…..
Increased pollution on the lake caused by fuel spillage has concerned
EPA officials and Reedy Creek.
The portable two gallon fuel tanks on the original Watersprite boats,
were replaced with built-in 8 gallon tanks on the new Watermouse boats,
which allow for fuel spillage on every re-fill or approx 50 gallons on a
busy day (based on 200 tanks filled twice per day, times one cup of gas
being spilled)
Why built-in tanks vs.portable? To meet the minimum passenger
capacity of 300 lbs that Disney required, Mercury had to add weight
to the front of the boat. This also explains why the boat is so wet
on turns and steers out of control at high speeds.
In closing, I can assure you this story is based on facts, all of which
have been made available to Disney and Brunswick executives for
there review and file.
With regard to the Dry Dock security, according to sources inside
Disney, there has been no security at that gate since January 1, 1998,
for budget reasons!
Sincerely,
John Paulson
UPINEWS1

Subject: Re: Boating Safety at Walt Disney World
From: W6JCW
Date: 1998/08/05
Newsgroups: rec.boats
John, WHY ON EARTH would you post these folks names, addresses,
and phone numbers on the net?? There's too many nuts out there to
do something like this. If you wanted to send them to Scott, then you
should have used e-mail. I know if I were on that list, I would be livid......
I appreciate the info about boating safety at Disney World, but
please, next time engage your brain before your keyboard....

Subject: Re: Boating Safety at Walt Disney World
From: upinews1@aol.com
Date: 1998/08/05
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Thank you for your interest in the Dangerous Boats at Walt Disney World story.
First, the names listed in the accident reports are already public
information.
Second, you should be more livid about the Disney / Brunswick conspiracy to
operate dangerous watercraft on Bay Lake without regard for public safety.
Do you have any information that may helpful to inform the general public
regarding the Watermouse ?
Sincerely,
John Paulson
upinews1

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998
From: jmiller8210@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick?
Gary wrote:
>
> Mr. Wizard, an RBBI columnist and marine sorcerer,
> has just posted his predictions for Brunswick and
> some of its major boating companies.
>
> Drop by and check out the future at
>
> http://www.rbbi.com/
RBBI
If you examine Mr. Wizards predictions, along with other bad news for
Brunswick including there recent problems with the impletation of a defective
boat fleet at Disney World "according to the upinews message". It would be
easy understand that Brunswick will have to make a lot of changes in the
future.

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998
From: jmiller8210@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick?
RBBI
Based on Mr. Wizards predictions, along with other bad news for Brunswick
including their recent problems with the implementation of a defective boat
fleet at Walt Disney World "according to a upinews message". It appears that
merger or takeover is in order, if not already underway!
jmiller8210

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998
From: jmiller8210@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: brunswick vs. Disney
Browrg wrote:
> get a life
>
It would appear that the person who posted the article "Brunswick vs Disney"
regarding the Watermouse boat problems, is trying to save lives, so get with
it program!
jmiller8210
Gary wrote:
>
> Mr. Wizard, an RBBI columnist and marine sorcerer,
> has just posted his predictions for Brunswick and
> some of its major boating companies.
>
> Drop by and check out the future at
>
> http://www.rbbi.com/
RBBI
If you examine Mr. Wizards predictions, along with other bad news for
Brunswick including there recent problems with the impletation of a defective
boat fleet at Disney World "according to the upinews message". It would be
easy understand that Brunswick will have to make a lot of changes in the
future.
jmiller8210

Email: jmiller8210@my-dejanews.com
Date: 1998/08/12
Forums: rec.boats
(Browrg) wrote:
> get a life
It appears this person is trying to save a life, get with it program!
jmiller8210

Email: jmiller8210@my-dejanews.com
Date: 1998/08/12
Forums: rec.boats
(Browrg) wrote:
> get a life
It would appear that the person who posted the article "Brunswick vs Disney"
regarding the Watermouse boat problems, is trying to save lives, so get with
it program!
jmiller8210

Email: jmiller8210@my-dejanews.com
Date: 1998/08/13
Forums: rec.boats
To: John Paulson - UPINEWS1
Dear John,
I just heard through a friend in Florida, that there was another boating
accident at Walt Disney World yesterday, August 12th, 1998, involving the
Brunswick Watermouse boats that seriously injured two Disney customers
sending both to the hospital. One of the victims suffered a fractured skull
and the other, a little girl whose face was crushed. Apparently, both
injuries were caused by the pointed bow of the other Watermouse boat!
I guess Brunswick is waiting for someone to get killed in there new and
improved Watermouse trap, before they are removed from Disney's lake!
jmiller8210

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
From: boatnews1@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit?
The Brunswick Watermouse is out of control and so is Disney's recreation
program..
by John Paulson- UPINEWS1
ORLANDO (Aug.12) - A serious accident on Disney's Bay Lake sent a mother and
daughter to the Hospital on Wednesday. The mother suffered severe head
trauma and a fractured skull, while the little girl got her face crushed in.
Both injuries were caused by the other boats pointed bow. Unlike most
accidents, Disney must now confront the fact that Brunswick's Watermouse is
an inherently dangerous product and the contributing factor in the types of
injuries that have occurred to date. ("10 accidents within seven months,
9,000 rides and counting") all of which could of been avoided "according to
source's familiar with the project".
The Watermouse boats have got to go! , "said one Disney insider, who's name
could not be mentioned in fear of losing their job" stating that the public
image of Disney's Bay Lake recreation as a safe place for guest to have fun
and play is at risk. Worst yet, the entire recreation program in general has
gone to hell since being taken over by JW (a former pool guard) and MG (a
former car salesman) who are directly responsible for endorsing the
Watermouse over other boats that are far safer by comparison. This effort
was further endorsed by a Mercury Marine manager out of Wisconsin who
excluded other vendors that were dealing direct with Disney and of course
make way for big budgets for travel and play, all in the name of research and
development.
This is not the first blunder for the "dynamic dual" "according to sources
close to Disney", The JW-MG team introduced a Hovercraft 6 months or so ago,
which had be to stopped when the fan blades kept breaking sending fragments
across the lake at 120 mph, not to mention the noise.. Then came the purchase
of a very expensive Hummer vehicle to take Disney's guests fishing on a Lake
near the Magic Kingdom entrance. Unfortunately, the only customers were the
Disney recreation and Mercury Marine management for their private functions.
These two guys are very good salesman, "says one source close to Disney" they
like to play lots of golf , travel and spend Disney dollars along with there
Mercury Manager buddy who as a team successfully pitched the global
recreation program including the Watermouse to Disney and Brunswick
executives.
The problem with recreation is clearly JW and MG "says one Disney source".
Aside from being inexperienced in water recreation, their goals are
unrealistic with complicated budgets and schemes that are designed to
maintain their high profile jobs and lifestyles with Disney.
I am certain that the Disney executives who supported the JW-MG team feel
discouraged with global recreation forecast. Thanks in part to Brunswick's
Watermouse, which has become the Trap, that caught the Mouse!
Safety should never be compromised, especially at Walt Disney World.

Date: 14 Aug 1998
From: Cacorder
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit?
>> Safety should never be compromised, especially at Walt Disney World.
>The watermouse boats have got to go!
This thread has to go. With the 4 original postings and multiple
"quotes" this unproven RUMOR has been posted at least 10 times.
Dont you think we have read it enough or do you have some sort of
hard on for Disney?

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
From: Eric
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit?
boatnews1@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[redundant story clipped]
And by the way, this other ID "boatnews1", shares the same trace
characteristics as the other two ID's posting and supporting these stories.
In other words, it looks like you're all the same person.
The same person with some sort of agenda.
Show some proof. And no, names, addresses, and phone numbers of alleged
victims are not relevant. An independent news source with the same stories
would be valid.

Date: 14 Aug 1998
From: Gould
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go!
Eric stated:
>A few things...
>You and jmiller8210 (who's been very verbal in supporting you)
> are both coming in from almost the same IP address
> (both AOL gateways in the same region), and there are a few
> other things a bit too similar (which I'm not going to reveal)
> in your article trace info. None of the info has yet to be backed
> up by any external sources, and UPINEWS1 is an obvious fake
> ID attempting to mimic UPI News.
>
>How about posting a link to some external source that can confirm
> ANY of these stories. Without that this sounds like an agenda.
> Back up the claims.
>
If the Watermouse ride is dangerous, that's a legitimate concern.
I share some of the doubts expressed by Eric. The style and
syntax of the claimed "news article" would get a C minus in
an 8th Grade Journalism class (it's an editorial, not a report!).
Does somebody maybe have it in for the two gentlemen
maligned in the ad?

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
From: blue
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit?
boatnews1@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> boatnews1@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > The Brunswick Watermouse is out of control and so is Disney's recreation
> > program..
> The watermouse boats have got to go!
This whole thread is bogus. This exposes the danger of a newsgroup on the
internet. Twits can hide behind their keyboards and report lies as truths
without any reperocussions.

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
From: upinews1@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit?
blue wrote:
> This whole thread is bogus. This exposes the danger of a newsgroup on the
> internet. Twits can hide behind their keyboards and report lies as truths
> without any reperocussions.
To: blue
After each story is posted, copies are sent via e-mail to all the parties
concerned i.e. (email addresses deleted) for their comments and rebuttal .
You can be assured, that if the story being printed was false or misleading,
both Disney and Brunswick have the resources to file for an injunctive relief
requesting a court ordered cease and desists motion. "According sources
close to both Disney and Brunswick, they have no intention of seeking such an
action which would require them to show proof positive, that the information
posted was in fact false and misleading, which it is not.
Bottom Line. Disney needs to replace the Watermouse boats with a safer boat.
There is no excuse for the preventable injuries to date, especially to
innocent children who are not aware of the risk!

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
From: upinews1@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go!
gould wrote:
> If the Watermouse ride is dangerous, that's a legitimate concern.
>
> I share some of the doubts expressed by Eric. The style and
> syntax of the claimed "news article" would get a C minus in
> an 8th Grade Journalism class (it's an editorial, not a report!).
>
> Does somebody maybe have it in for the two gentlemen maligned in the ad?
To: gould
The Watermouse story is proactive, not reactive. If you would take the time
to review all of the stories posted and the tone of your response, one could
only suspect that you are affiliated somehow with Disney, Brunswick or
Mercury Marine whom I have always sent copies via e-mail for there comments,
i.e. (email addresses deleted)
A concerned respondent would view this article with compassion and concern
for the guest who were injured asking more questions like, why was the
propeller guard removed for the Bay Lake operations?, or, why changed the
boat design to a pointed bow from the proven safety of a rounded bow?, or,
why was this particular boat design chosen over the original Disney
Watersprite and/or other models that could have prevented the types of
injuries that have occurred to date?. Not questions about similar IP
addresses, etc..
Quite frankly, the "dynamic duels" role in the implementation of the
Watermouse is news worthy. Most of the detailed Watermouse information
received to date describes conflicts of interest, corruption, deceptive
business practices, collusion and conspiracy between the parties. These
matters are note worthy at best, but do not pertain to public safety issues.
In my opinion, the message is more important than the messenger. Based on
the information received, the Watermouse boats are defective, dangerous and
should be removed from the lake immediately, as further evidenced by the
number people, including children getting hurt unnecessary on a monthly
basis. What is more disturbing, "according to sources close to the project"
Disney, Mercury and Brunswick, a) had prior knowledge of the numerous
Watermouse defects, b) they fully understood that changing to a pointed bow
design would increase the chances for serious injuries c) removing the
propeller guard was to avoid setting a precedent that would effect pending
propeller guard litigation without regard for safety.
John Paulson
upinews1
fr21au97N Propeller Injury Prevention Involving Rented Boats
fr26mr96P Propeller Injury Prevention Aboard Rental Boats

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
From: E
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go!
upinews1@aol.com wrote:
>To: gould0738
>
>The Watermouse story is proactive, not reactive. If you would take the time
>to review all of the stories posted and the tone of your response, one could
>only suspect that you are affiliated somehow with Disney, Brunswick or
>Mercury Marine
[clip]
That's so weak. "You disagree with me, so you must be affiliated with the
people I'm maligning".
>A concerned respondent would view this article with compassion and concern
[clip]
>Not questions about similar IP addresses, etc..
>
A concerned respondent who has trouble believing unsubstantiated claims would
like you to provide a source for these stories other than your own fantasies.
You're posting under several ID's having converstions with yourself, and
anyone questioning it is an "agent of the enemy" ?
Please. If the stories are real, provide a few independent sources than can
confirm them. This has already been asked and you've chosen to
ignore the request. Provide sources. Otherwise take your agenda elsewhere.

Date: 14 Aug 1998
From: Marcus
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go!
upinews1@aol.com wrote:
> The Watermouse story is proactive, not reactive.
A true story based only on facts must always be reactive. Reporters
don't make the news, they report it--after it happens, as a reaction.
Proactive would mean they made it up before it happened. Which is it?
> If you would take the time to review all of the stories posted and
> the tone of your response, one could only suspect that you are
> affiliated somehow with Disney, Brunswick or Mercury Marine...
I could only suspect he wanted another source to back up the story. If
this stuff really happened as described, there should be a record of
it somewhere.
> A concerned respondent would view this article with compassion and
> concern for the guest who were injured asking more questions like...
As Gould himself put in other words, if people were truly injured,
then I could become a concerned respondent. But this is Usenet, and
until verified elsewhere, all stories are assumed bogus. So, let's
have some citations of sources that can be verified, not ones that
come up as dead ends.
How else can this be distinguished from a boy crying wolf?

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:51:42 -0500
From: Skipper
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go!
upinews1@aol.com wrote:
> To: gould0738
> (message deleted)
> John Paulson
> upinews1
What does John Paulson have to do with United Press International???
He sounds like a disgruntled ex-employee. Thankfully this is about
Disney and not the post office.

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
From: Brian
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go!
upinews1@aol.com wrote:
>
> Quite frankly, the "dynamic duels" role in the implementation of the
> Watermouse is news worthy.
Then why can't you provide us with references from recognized news
sources?
>
> In my opinion, the message is more important than the messenger.
Not when the messengeer trys to represent himself as something he is not
by usurping the good name of UPI news.

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
From: Robert
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit?
E wrote in message
>Show some proof. And no, names, addresses, and phone numbers of alleged
>victims are not relevant. An independent news source with the same stories
>would be valid.
A way to check this out would be to forward a copy to Disney's legal dept.

Our post announcing this page

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
From: Gary
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit?
blue wrote:
> This whole thread is bogus. This exposes the danger of a newsgroup on the
> internet. Twits can hide behind their keyboards and report lies as truths
> without any reperocussions.
I agree, so we (RBBI) archived the posts and provided a discussion
of them centering on how readers might earlier detect such problem.
It is all on our
"Recognizing and Dealing with Vendetta in rec.boats" Page
You can temporarily get there from our entry page
http://www.rbbi.com/
or you can go directly to
http://www.rbbi.com/folders/recb/vendetta/vendetta.htm
I thing you will find some useful ideas there for evaluating
future posts of this nature.
gary
RBBI

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
From: Eric
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit?
I checked thru the whole thread as on rbbi.org, and noticed once thing
from one of the first posts by boatnews1:
" After the Feakins accident, I asked a cast member at the Grand
resort where they would usually takes boats to avoid the publics viewing
of blood and gore. I was told that all boats were serviced at the dry dock
facility, in the same breath he mention that Disney was offered a safer
boat similar to the original Watersprite called "Jeti" that was designed by
the same guy who invented parasailing and also had operated the
parasail concession at the Contemporary resort for the last three years.
Although, this mystery inventor was no were to be found, I was able to
locate information written about him on the Web at
http://www.skyrider.net"
Going to www.skyrider.net and reading the information there, it's very
legal-oriented, talking about legal threats, dangers of competing
products, etc, etc. The text is written in a very similar manner to these
anti-Brunswick posts, by a person who knows the inner workings of Disney
and the Contemporary resort. (Does anyone really think a cast member
would reveal to the general public where a boat is taken after an
accident and just blurt out that Disney had a safer alternative they
didn't take? Sounds like someone with inside info.)
Draw your own conclusions.

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
From: upinews1@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! #1
Marcus wrote:
> A true story based only on facts must always be reactive. Reporters
> don't make the news, they report it--after it happens, as a reaction.
> Proactive would mean they made it up before it happened. Which is it?
---------------------
A RESPONSE ...
Make no mistake, the Walt Disney World Company is an exceptional
organization operated by an outstanding team of cast members who
understand personal values of superiors, subordinates, peers and
the millions of guests they serve each year.
However, the public identifies with Disney as a place were safety is
paramount and never compromised for politics or profits and where
Disney assumes responsibility for their mistakes and shortcomings.
If the Watermouse editorial was reactive, it would merely make an
impression for viewers like yourself to respond. The Watermouse
project clearly demonstrates irresponsible behavior on those who
masterminded it, and relevant only to the seniors executives within
the Disney, Brunswick and Mercury Marine organizations who could
intervene and resolve it. If not, Watermouse accidents will continue
and more unsuspecting families will be injured.
With regard to our sources, every executive at Disney, Brunswick
and Mercury Marine that are involved with the Watermouse project,
have got their monitors glued to this story and probably on a witch
hunt by know looking for the source's leaking such pertinent
information.
Good Luck!
John Paulson
Upinews1

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
From: Scott
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! #1
John Paulson,
I want to know two things:
1. What is your relation to United Press International, if any? If you have
no relation, why post under a the bogus name of UPINEWS1 other than to attempt
to mislead readers into believing that you are something that you are not.
2. Which was your original post, a "news" story or an editorial? The original
post claimed to be a "news" story since is was posted in the style of a
newspaper article. Just above, in your response to Marcus, you call it an
editorial. Again, if you were associated with a legitimate news organization,
you should know the difference.
I believe the original post you state "Story by John Paulson". I believe this is
pure fantasy.

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
From: Skipper
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! #1
upinews1@aol.com wrote:
> With regard to our sources, every executive at Disney, Brunswick and
> Mercury Marine that are involved with the Watermouse project, have got
> their monitors glued to this story and probably on a witch hunt by
> know looking for the source's leaking such pertinent information.
Take your BS and find an appropriate NG. "EVERY executive at Disney,
Brunswick, and Mercury Marine", ...get real.
We do understand that you have no affiliation with UPI, refuse to post
responses to the questions raised, fabricated the 'news story', and are
a total jerk for using an amusement park attraction to support your
bash.
Do you have any boating issues?

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
From: Skipper
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit? #1
upinews1@aol.com wrote:
> Bottom Line. Disney needs to replace the Watermouse boats with a safer
> boat. There is no excuse for the preventable injuries to date,
> especially to innocent children who are not aware of the risk!
>
> John Paulson
> Upinews1
And what's next for upinews1@aol.com posting through DejaNews?
Abuse@***?
One quick e-mail would get your off topic flame stopped. Ten, and you
can forget posting through Deja. Suggest you get on topic!

Date: 17 Aug 1998
From: STGAZER
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go!
If everyone would e-mail dateline or 20/20 or 48 hours on the Disney
Watermouse - maybe they would do a story on it to see if it's safe or not.

We re-announced this page

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998
From: Gary
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Brunswick Disney Watermouse Vendetta Over?
RBBI has been maintaining an archive
of the thread and also posted some
suggestions about how to avoid being
"spoofed" by a vendetta in the future.
You can temporarily get there from the entry page
http://www.rbbi.com
or you can go direct to:
http://www.rbbi.com/folders/recb/vendetta/vendetta.htm
gary
RBBI

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998
From: upinews1@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! #1A
Skipper wrote:
> We do understand that you have no affiliation with UPI, refuse to post
> responses to the questions raised, fabricated the 'news story', and are
> a total jerk for using an amusement park attraction to support your
> bash.
>
> Do you have any boating issues?
-------In Response.........to Skipper.......
SOURCES
Due to the sensitivity of the information being posted. We are bound by
confidentiality never to reveal names and/or the affiliation of the persons
within the various organizations that are involved and is a condition of our
sources being quoted throughout the Watermouse string.
BOAT ACCIDENT PHOTOS
The Watermouse story is true and the injuries are real. Please review the
photo file of the (first name deleted by RBBI) Feakins accident (#2) that
I personally witnessed and e-mailed to you under the file name
"WATER~1.zip". In the picture marked Watermouse jpg1, you can
clearly see the blood splattered stains on the port side forward of
mid-ship, this boat was the one Mr. Feakins was driving. In the
picture marked Watermouse jpg2, looking from the aft port side, you can
view the same blood stains splattered across the entire upper deck. In the
picture marked Watermouse jpg 3, you can see the blood stains continue
back around the boat number 159 and Mercury logo. In the picture
marked Watermouse jpg6, boat number 156, which was driven by the
young boy who rammed into Mr. Feakins. If you look closely you can
see blood stains, hair and skin still attached to the pointed bow. In the
picture marked Watermouse jpg 7, you can see there is no propeller
guard which were removed from all Watermouse boats before they
were put into actual service. The third boat,driven by the young girl
who ran over Mr. Feakins cutting him with the propeller, was not
damaged and not in this photo set..
Additional pictures are available.
John Paulson
Upinews1

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998
From: blue
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go!
stgazer wrote:
> If everyone would e-mail dateline or 20/20 or 48 hours on
> the Disney Watermouse - maybe they would do a story on
> it to see if it's safe or not.
This whole watermouse thread is a prank played on everyone
in this newsgroup. Why in the world would people in this group
want to continue to spread an unsubstantiated rumor? It
would only bring negative publicity to an otherwise great
source for (mostly) factual practical boating information.
This whole thread needs to be recognized for what it really
is. A totaly bogus prank played on the emotions of many.
Lets ignore it and maybe it will go away.

Date: 17 Aug 1998
From: Sven
To: upinews1@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse - Tell somebody that cares!
If this is a valid response to a real problem, why dont you
post the issue is a Disney stockholders forum. If someone
with a significant financial stake in the company thinks it is
viable, maybe they will pursue the issue.
Here are two such message boards:
http://messages.yahoo.com/?action=q&board=DIS
http://www.ragingbull.com/cgi-bin/boards.pl?board=DIS+startfrom=recent
If it's a bunch of MS (mouse sh_t), then go away. Or just go
away anyway.

John Paulson responds to RBBI posting the archives

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998
From: upinews1@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswick Disney Watermouse Vendetta Over? #1
Gary wrote:
> RBBI has been maintaining an archive
> of the thread and also posted some
> suggestions about how to avoid being
> "spoofed" by a vendetta in the future.
>
> RBBI
----IN RESPONSE TO RBBI AND TO ALL OTHERS - "VENDETTA"
1. THE WATERMOUSE EVENTS ARE OF SUFFICIENT
POTENTIAL AND INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC THAT
WARRANTS A NEWS FORMAT. THE OFFICIAL OR
SEMI-OFFICIAL STYLE OF MY WRITING OR STATING
OF THE FACTS SERVE TO INFORM AND DO NOT
SUPPORT A POLITICAL CAUSE OR SPECIAL INTEREST.
POSTING THESE FINDINGS ON THE INTERNET IS
DIRECTED TO A SPECIAL AUDIENCE AND SERVES
TWO PURPOSES. FIRST, IT RENDERS CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION AS "PUBLIC DOMAIN" THUS
PREVENTING DISNEY, BRUNSWICK AND/OR
MERCURY MARINE FROM OBTAINING A GAG ORDER
THROUGH A LEGAL VENUE TO STOP THE FLOW OF
TRUTHFUL INFORMATION. SECOND, IT INFORMS
THE PUBLIC OF THE POTENTIAL DANGER AND
HAZARDS OF THE WATERMOUSE BOAT, WHICH
IS BASED IN PART ON THE FACTS PRESENTED
AND THE OPINION OF MY "SOURCES".
2. THE TERM "UPI" IS AN ABBREVIATION FOR
UNDERWOOD-PAULSON INVESTIGATIONS
AND WAS NEVER REPRESENTED AS UNITED PRESS
INTERNATIONAL, ALTHOUGH I HAVE TO ADMIT, I
WAS AMUSED WITH THE "RUSH TO JUDGMENT
BY SPECIFIC RESPONDENTS.
3. PROFESSIONALLY, I AM A RETIRED ACCIDENT
INVESTIGATOR, NOT A THEME PARK OPERATOR,
BOAT BUILDER OR ENGINE MANUFACTURER AND I
CERTAINLY HAVE NO AX TO GRIND WITH ANY OF
THESE FINE ORGANIZATIONS.
4. THE DRIVING FORCE OF THE WATERMOUSE
INVESTIGATION , WAS INSPIRED WHEN I PERSONALLY
WITNESSED A WATERMOUSE ACCIDENT AND REMARKS
MADE BY THE CAST MEMBERS THAT I INITIALLY
QUESTIONED. AFTER WHICH I MADE CONTACT
WITH CERTAIN REPUTABLE INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS
CLOSE TO THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE
WATERMOUSE PROJECT ITSELF, WHO THEN BECAME
"SOURCES".
ON A PERSONAL NOTE, I HOPE THE VENDETTA LIKE
TONE OF THE MY MESSAGES, SENDS A STRONG
SIGNAL TO THE PARTIES INVOLVED, THAT SAFETY
SHOULD NEVER BE COMPROMISED, ESPECIALLY AT
WALT DISNEY WORLD AND THUS ENCOURAGE
CHANGE, AS I EXPECT THEY WILL.
ALSO, SOME OF THE VENOMOUS REMARKS FROM
VIEWERS ARE MORE THAN JUSTIFIED, BUT IT DOES
NOT CHANGE THE EVENTS AND FACTS AS PRESENTED
AND CERTAINLY CANNOT UN-RING THE BELL.
ONCE AGAIN MR. POLSON, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR COMMENTS, THEY WERE ANTICIPATED
GIVEN YOUR CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
BOATING WORLD.
IN FUTURE POST, I SUGGEST EVERYONE KEEP
AN OPEN MIND.
WITH REGARDS,
JOHN PAULSON
UPINEWS1

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:47:20 GMT
From: upinews1@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswick Disney Watermouse Vendetta Over? #1A
Lyle wrote:
> Sheesh! In future posts, I suggest you invest in a keyboard with a
> working caps lock key. "Shouting" is hard on the eyes.
>
Thanks LyIe, my keyboard is working now!
--------------
Can anyone help answers to these "top ten" questions?
1. Why would a theme park and engine manufacturer design and
build a commercial boat, when Brunswick has a host of boat
designers and manufacturing companies within their corporate
networki.e. Sea Ray, Bayliner, Tracker etc, etc..
2. Disney's original WaterSprite, was registered with Underwriters
Laboratory (UL). Why isn't Mercury's Watermouse registered with
UL? The only thing I saw was a standard USCG plate that any
boat builder can attached to their product that meets with the
minimum criteria under Title 33, Chapter 1, CFR, Part 183.0.
3. How many people will have to be injured, before soembody
wakes up and smells the coffee?
4. Who decided to remove the propeller guard? Disney? Mercury ?
or Both? And why?
5. Why would Disney change from a proven boat design, with
an impeccable safety and performance record, i.e. "the WaterSprite",
to a boat that has only caused corporate chaos and continues
to result in preventable injuries to guests who are unaware,
inexperienced and unsuspecting?
6. If Disney's central shops and/or ride & show engineering,
and/or recreation were a major part of the WaterMouse design
and approval, not to mention possibly financing its development ,
then why doesn't Disney allow Mercury Marine to use the name
"Walt Disney World" instead of "Theme Park"
in their Web Site?
http://www.mercurymarine.com/mercuryhome/products/watermouse/watermouse.cfm
7. Why does Mercury Marine advertise the WaterMouse on their Web
Site, but doesn't sell them to the public?
8. Since the WaterMouse (a cutting edge product as promoted in
Mercury's Website) was introduced, rentals at Disney are off by
20 to 30 percent. Are the executives who promoted it, blaming
this failure on other factors aside from maybe there own?
9. If the WaterMouse is a loss leader for Disney, Brunswick
and Mercury Marine, not to mention a liability that could cost
millions in litigation. Then why not replace it with the original
WaterSprite or at least offer Disney guests some other cutting
edge product, that doesn't have "dangerous" written all over
its pointed bow and/or a product that does not promote
reckless driving?
10. If any of the allegations, statements and comments in
our numerous postings have offended any of these fine
organizations, then why haven't they at denied them?
Or, if untrue, request that I stopped posting them?
John Paulson

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998
From: blue
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Brunswick Disney Watermouse Vendetta Over? #1A
upinews1@aol.com wrote:
> Can anyone help answers to these "top ten" questions?
>
> 1. Why would a theme park and engine manufacturer design and
> build a commercial boat, when Brunswick has a host of boat designers
> and manufacturing companies within their corporate networki.e.
> Sea Ray, Bayliner, Tracker etc, etc..
What makes you think one of them did not design and manufacturer it?
By the way, Tracker is not part of Brunswick. Brunswick owns a minority
interest in Tracker so as to secure the engine contract.
> 2. Disney's original WaterSprite, was registered with Underwriters
> Laboratory (UL). Why isn't Mercury's Watermouse registered with
> UL? The only thing I saw was a standard USCG plate that any
> boat builder can attached to their product that meets with the
> minimum criteria under Title 33, Chapter 1, CFR, Part 183.0.
I don't know of any boats that are registered with the UL. There
are a number of marine accessories that carry the UL rating but not
boats, at least that I am aware of. The USCG and the NMMA set
the standards for boat manufacturing.
> 3. How many people will have to be injured, before soembody
> wakes up and smells the coffee?
>
> 4. Who decided to remove the propeller guard? Disney? Mercury ? or Both? And
> why?
Propeller guards have been proven to rob power. Could be that the
boats did not perform to customer expectations with them. Could be
the vegetation in the lakes plugged them up. Could be lots of reasons.
> 5. Why would Disney change from a proven boat design, with an
> impeccable safety and performance record, i.e. "the WaterSprite",
> to a boat that has only caused corporate chaos and continues to
> result in preventable injuries to guests who are unaware,
> inexperienced and unsuspecting?
see answer to number nine.
> 6. If Disney's central shops and/or ride & show engineering,
> and/or recreation were a major part of the WaterMouse
> design and approval, not to mention possibly financing its
> development , then why doesn't Disney allow Mercury Marine
> to use the name "Walt Disney World" instead of "Theme Park"
> in their Web Site?
> http://www.mercurymarine.com/mercuryhome/products/watermouse/watermouse.cfm
I imagine that Disney charges quite a bit to use their name in any
promotion. Maybe Mercury didn't want to pay the promotional costs?
Maybe they prefer to spend promotional dollars elsewhere? Maybe
using Disney's name was not part of the vendor agreement.
> 7. Why does Mercury Marine advertise the WaterMouse on their
> Web Site, but doesn't sell them to the public?
After visiting the site, it appears to me that the unit will be
marketed and sold to marinas as an alternative product to
Personal Watercraft rentals. They may have no intention of
selling this product to the public. They are probably still
formulating their marketing strategy and may be testing the
waters for interest in the boat.
> 8. Since the WaterMouse (a cutting edge product as promoted
> in Mercury's Website) was introduced, rentals at Disney are off
> by 20 to 30 percent. Are the executives who promoted it, blaming
> this failure on other factors aside from maybe their own?
Are rentals down because of other factors? Is business down
as a whole? Did they raise the prices to rent the crafts and this
is having a negative impact? Only they know for sure but I am
sure that the person who gets a bonus as a result of reaching a
certain level of rental dollars is very aware of the problem.
> 9. If the WaterMouse is a loss leader for Disney, Brunswick
> and Mercury Marine, not to mention a liability that could
> cost millions in litigation. Then why not replace it with the
> original WaterSprite or at least offer Disney guests some
> other cutting edge product, that doesn't have "dangerous"
> written all over its pointed bow and/or a product that does
> not promote reckless driving?
How do you know it is a loss leader? Do you have access to
their books? Could be the public wanted something more thrilling
than the old watersprite. Could be Disney was trying to give their
customers what they wanted. Any boat can be dangerous if
improperly operated. The watermouse looks typical of a number
of boats in that product category. There are others on the market
that have a sharper bow design than the watermouse. I don't see
where that is a problem. The problem is in operator error. The
biggest issue here is whether Disney should offer a boat ride to
the general public without a boaters safety course included.
> 10. If any of the allegations, statements and comments in
> our numerous postings have offended any of these fine
> organizations, then why haven't they at least denied them?
> Or, if untrue, request that I stop posting them?
Simply John, because this is not the forum for such a discussion. Gary Polson
at www.RBBI.com goes into depth on that subject.

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998
From: upinews1@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Disney's Watermouse may veer off course !
In Re to: Brunswick Disney Watermouse Vendetta Over? #1A
On 8-14-98 - Ref. Watermouse -blue wrote:
This whole thread is bogus. This exposes the danger of a newsgroup
on the Internet. Twits can hide behind their keyboards and report
lies as truths without any repercussions.
Dear Blue: If the Watermouse thread is so bogus, then why take
the time to respond to questions with hypothetical answers.
By the way, Disney's original WaterSprite was registered with
Underwriters Laboratory (UL) for over twenty years. You can
contact Underwriters Laboratory at Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, Tel 919-549-1400 to verify. Additionally, any
boat can be UL rated, but would have to pass every requirement
under Title 33, Chapter 1, CFR, Part 183.0 of the USCG
regulations to received the UL endorsement. The majority of
boats on the market could meet such a strict safety criteria.
Apparently, the WaterMouse does not either!
John Paulson
****************** WATERMOUSE NEWS UPDATE ********************
(Aug 21) Plagued with accidents and possible lawsuits.
Disney's watermouse may veer off course in a new direction or
go away completely, according to reliable sources. The legal
and guests claims departments are bewildered by the sheer
number of accidents "approximately one a month" and the
types of injuries that are being reported. Stay tuned !
John Paulson
Upinews1

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998
From: Scott
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Disney's Watermouse may veer off course !
upinews1@aol.com wrote:
> ****************** WATERMOUSE NEWS UPDATE ********************
>
> (Aug 21) Plagued with accidents and possible lawsuits. Disney's
> watermouse may veer off course in a new direction or go away
> completely, according to reliable sources.
What possibly could cause the WaterMouse to veer off course unless
the driver turned the wheel?
I'm not aware of any hull designs that can magically turn a boat when
the driver does not expect it.
Steering systems do not magically disappear leaving the driver at
the mercy of the evil craft which can "go away completely." By
the way, since both Bay Lake and Seven Seas Lagoon are lakes,
you cannot "go away completely" without quickly beaching on
the shore.
Your hype and obvious venom to the WaterMouse as well
as your praise that "Disney was offered a safer boat similar
to the original Watersprite called "Jeti" that was designed
by the same guy who invented parasailing and also had
operated the parasail concession at the Contemporary resort
for the last three years" just prove that your a vindictive
loser in your attempt to supply Disney with a competing
watercraft.
Go away and cry to yourself.
--
Scott

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998
From: jf1234@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: DISNEY / BRUNSWICK / WATERMOUSE CONSPIRACY THEORY EXPOSED!
Gary wrote:
>
> RBBI has been maintaining an archive
> of the thread and also posted some
> suggestions about how to avoid being
> "spoofed" by a vendetta in the future.
>
> (snip)
#############################################################
DISNEY - BRUNSWICK - WATERMOUSE CONSPIRACY THEORY EXPOSED!
##############################################################
To: Gary Polson - aka RBBI - aka Mr. Wizard - and to all......
I am sick of everyone trying to play Dick Tracy in the name
of building your web site presence and the rest of your mindless
keyboard thugs who sound like a bunch of wining Brunswick-Disney
groupies, that don't give a damn about the watermouse, public
safety and certainly not what john paulson has been posting.
As a cast member of WDW who has worked at the resort
marinas. I know like others, the history of the watermouse project
and people involved, including the executive branch.
I can say with certainly, that paulson hit a home run on the
facts about the watermouse conspiracy theory, including the
accidents, injuries and challenges that are facing the WDW
establishment.
>From what I personally know, in late 1995, the director of
recreation at Disney had been promising the resorts replacement
boats for two years. The contemporary resort management,
tired of waiting, struck a deal directly with the parasail operator
(an inventor) to build a boat. The next thing I see is a prototype
boat very similar in design to original watersprite docked at the
contemporary resort marina, being tested and looked at by
other marinas with positive feedback from the marina managers
and other cast members.
>From what I understand, and prior to watermouse and
Brunswick contract, the contemporary resort executives and
managers who had encouraged the parasail guy to development
this boat, infuriated the director of recreation, who secretly knew
of this boat's development and keep lying about its existence,
until it showed up. Although Disney had looked at other boats,
the rec. director was being forced into signing the deal with the
parasail guy's boat which was UL approved like the watersprite
and incorporated numerous safety features not found in both
the watersprite or watermouse.
>From what I heard, the director of recreation feeling betrayed
and pissed off about the thought of losing control because of
his own irresponsible behavior, conned mercury marine into
offering a unproven boat concept "the watermouse" to disney
packaged along with a brunswick participant agreement that
would impress and gain the support from the WDW executive
branch, which of course killed the watersprite lookalike deal,
discouraged the parasail operator from renewing his contract
and promoted the construction of the watermouse at whatever
cost and risk.
No one around here really cares too much for the watermouse
and is scared to death of the rec. director, paulson maligned,
who forced the contemporary manager into early retirement
and has and will transfer anyone who dares criticizes his global
program, despite the frequency of watermouse accidents
which average one a month "as quoted by paulson", loss of
rental revenues since the watermouse introduction and the ever
declining (GSM) guest satisfaction measurement for recreation,
which in truth, is below expectations with most reports being
fudged which has brought the level of morale around here to
a all time low with everyone quietly looking for suitable transfers.
It is my opinion, for whatever its worth, it was the director of
recreation's arrogance, oversized ego, personal vendettas and
basic disregard for all known Disney principals and practices
that unnecessarily increased the liability for disney, brunswick
and mercury marine, embarrassing this recreation facility and
may forever damage the "Disney Image" as a whole if
this scandal becomes public.
This reckless behavior has corrupted the disney standards
and masterminded the watermouse conspiracy as alleged
by paulson,
Thanks to paulson, who has become a hero for those to
scared to speak up, might get the message though Disney's
senior executives, who care and are willing to listen. I just
hope all you experts reading this stop trying to discourage
paulson's continued investigation, for a lot of us what to see
some real changes around here.
THIS IS MY ONE AND ONLY POST. THE REASON,
D-EARS ARE BIGGER THAN ONE WOULD THINK!
The End
No Response Required
jf1234@my-dejanews.com

Date: 24 Aug 1998
From: Cacorder
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: DISNEY / BRUNSWICK / WATERMOUSE CONSPIRACY THEORY EXPOSED!
>some real changes around here.
>
>THIS IS MY ONE AND ONLY POST. THE REASON, D-EARS ARE
>BIGGER THAN ONE WOULD THINK!
Thanks jf1234. Great to finally hear somebody concur with Paulsons
words. Just one more reason (among millions) that not one dollar of
my money goes to Disney.

Date: 24 Aug 1998
From: Blue
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Disney's Watermouse may veer off course !
>From: upinews1@aol.com
>Date: Sun, Aug 23, 1998 23:45 EDT
>Dear Bluebookeditor: If the Watermouse thread is so
> bogus, then why take the time to respond to questions with
> hypothetical answers.
Because John, you asked some good questions that I thought
I could help answer. I would do that for anyone. But when they
intentionally mislead me or others in this newsgroup, I feel
compelled to right that wrong. I may even resort to name calling.
Twit is "to tease, taunt, especially by reminding one of a mistake".
By the way, thanks for correcting my misspelling of repercussions.
>By the way, Disney's original WaterSprite was registered with
>Underwriters Laboratory (UL) for over twenty years.
I never questioned the fact that it was registered with the UL.
But it is unusual for a company to spend the time and money
today to get the UL approval when there are other agencies
that specialize in setting standards for boats, namely the USCG
and NMMA.
>You can contact Underwriters
>Laboratory at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, Tel 919-549-1400 to
>verify. Additionally, any boat can be UL rated, but would have to pass every
>requirement under Title 33, Chapter 1, CFR, Part 183.0 of the USCG
>regulations to received the UL endorsement. The majority of boats on the
>market could meet such a strict safety criteria. Apparently, the WaterMouse
>does not either!
It might if Disney were to tell the makers of the Water Mouse to
get it tested or lose the contract. Maybe the Water Mouse would
pass as is. That is a question I would like answered as well. Get the
first three letters of the hull identification number then go to the uscg.mil
site and see who actually builds it and ask them.